%include "default.mgp" %default 1 bgrad %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %page %nodefault %back "blue" %center %size 7 GPL Workshop How to (not?) use Free Software %center %size 4 by Harald Welte %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %page How to (not) use GPL Software Contents About the speaker Ideas / Goals of the GPL How to (not) use GPL Software Complete Source Code Derivative Works Collective Works GPL and Embedded Systems The biggest GPL Myths Thanks %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %page How to (not) use GPL Software Introduction Who is speaking to you? an independent Free Software developer who earns his living off Free Software since 1997 who is one of the authors of the Linux kernel firewall system called netfilter/iptables who has started gpl-violations.org to enforce license compliance who IS NOT A LAWYER %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %page How to (not) use GPL Software Disclaimer Legal Disclaimer All information presented here is provided on an as-is basis There is no warranty for correctness of legal information The author is not a lawyer This does not comprise legal advise The authors' experience is limited to German copyright law %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %page How to (not) use GPL Software Ideas and Goals of the GNU GPL Free Software Software that has fundamental freedoms: to use it for any purpose to "help your neighbour" (i.e. make copies) to study it's functionality (reading source code) to fix it myself (make modifications and run them) Copyleft Is the legal idea to exercising copyright to grant the above freedoms assure that nobody can take away the freedom The GNU General Public License Is a legal instrument to apply they copyleft idea on software %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %page How to (not) use GPL Software The GNU GPL revisited Revisiting the GNU General Public License Regulates distribution of copyrighted code, not usage Allows distribution of source code and modified source code The license itself is mentioned A copy of the license accompanies every copy Allows distribution of binaries or modified binaries, if The license itself is mentioned A copy of the license accompanies every copy The complete source code is either included with the copy (alternatively a written offer to send the source code on request to any 3rd party) %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %page How to (not) use GPL Software Complete Source Code %size 3 "... complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable." For standard C-language programs, this means: Source Code Makefiles compile-time Configuration (such as kernel .config) General Rule: Intent of License is to enable user to run modified versions of the program. They need to be enabled to do so. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %page How to (not) use GPL Software Derivative Works What is a derivative work? Not dependent on any particular kind of technology (static/dynamic linking, dlopen, whatever) Even while the modification can itself be a copyrightable work, the combination with GPL-licensed code is subject to GPL. As soon as code is written for a specific non-standard API (such as the iptables plugin API), there is significant indication for a derivative work This position has been successfully enforced out-of-court with two Vendors so far (iptables modules/plugins). %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %page How to (not) use GPL Software Derivative Works Binary-only kernel modules In-kernel proprietary code (binary kernel modules) are hard to claim GPL compliant Case-by-case analysis required, as the level of integration into the GPL licensed kernel code depends on particular case IBM is in the process of getting rid of all binary-only kernel modules. There are exceptions, but they are very clear ones (such as a filesystem port to linux, where the filesystem code already existed under another OS) There is no general acceptance or tolerance to binary-only kernel modules in the Linux (development) community. Not even Linus himself has ever granted an exception for such modules! %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %page How to (not) use GPL Software Derivative Works Glue Code Acts as glue layer between GPL licensed code and proprietary code Some Vendors think they can avoid the GPL by doing so Is definitely not a bullet-proof legal solution, especially when it is clearly visible that the only purpose of this glue code is to "get rid" of the GPL. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %page How to (not) use GPL Software Derivative Works Moral Issues Apart from what is legally possible, there are moral issues Even if in a particular case there is no legal way to claim a binary-only kernel module is a derivative work, you might still be acting against the authors' wishes By shipping binary-only kernel modules, you violate the "moral code of conduct" of the Free Software community But it is the work of this very community that enables you to build your product based on Free Software Such action might have long-term detrimental effects on the motivation of FOSS developers (dissatisfaction, demotivation, ...) %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %page How to (not) use GPL Software Collective Works %size 3 "... it is not the intent .. to claim rights or contest your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works ..." GPL controls "collective works" %size 3 "... mere aggregation of another work ... with the program on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work und the scope of this license" GPL allows "mere aggregation" like a general-porpose GNU/Linux distribution (SuSE, Red Hat, ...) %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %page How to (not) use GPL Software GPL And Embedded Systems Historical background: The GPL was written for userspace programs running on existing operating systems Covering a whole OS (and even userspace programs) is not an ideal match, but if you read it carefully it still makes sense Toolchain: %size 3 "... the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable." Practical case: You've modified gcc for a specific embedded platform Therefore, this gcc is not "normally distributed with the operating system" and you have to distribute it together with the source code gcc itself is covered under GPL, so you need to provide binaries and source code(!) %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %page How to (not) use GPL Software GPL And Embedded Systems The "Scripts" (scripts to control compilation and installation, see earlier slide) In case of embedded hardware, the "scripts" include: Tools for generating the firmware binary from the source (even if they are technically no 'scripts') Embedded DRM Intent of License is to enable user to run modified versions of the program. They need to be enabled to do so. Result: Signing binaries and only accepting signed versions from the bootloader (without providing the signature key or a possibility to set a new key in the bootloader) is not acceptable! %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %page How to (not) use GPL Software Practical Source Code Offer Some Rules The "complete corresponding source code" has to be made available It has to be made available for each and every object-code version that was distributed If you strip down the source code offer (e.g. remove proprietary source code), try to see whether the result actually compiles If the product is mixed free / proprietary software, consider including the proprietary parts (as object code) in the "source code package", so the full firmware image can be rebuilt without having to tear apart an existing image and ripping out those proprietary programs from there. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %page How to (not) use GPL Software The biggest myths about the GPL The biggest myths about the GPL The GPL is not enforcible Software licensed under GPL has no copyright Unmodified distribution does not require source code availability The vendor can wait for a source code request (without offering it) %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %page How to (not) use GPL Software The most common mistakes The most common mistakes not even once reading the GPL text and/or the FAQ from the FSF not including the GPL license text with the product not including a written offer with the product not considering that the GPL also applies to software updates only providing original source code (e.g. vanilla kernel.org kernel) not including the "scripts to control installation" only providing off-site hyperlinks to license and/ore source code not responding to support requests for source code charging rediculously high fees for physical shipping of source code %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %page How to (not) use GPL Software License Compatibility There's lots of Free Software available Different Software uses different Licenses: Linux: GPL glibc: LGPL apache: Apache Software License Perl: Artistic ucd-snmp: BSD If you combine (i.e. link) differently-licensed software, check license compatibility in case of doubt, ask legal person and/or contact software authors authors might give you an exception or consider making licenses compatible %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %page How to (not) use GPL Software Dual Licensing The copyright holder (often the original author) can provide alternative licensing Some projects do this as a business model (reiserfs, MySQL) In some projects it's impossible due to the extremely distributed copyright (e.g. Linux kernel) However, in smaller projects it never hurts to ask whether there would be interest in providing an alternative (non-copyleft) licensing %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %page The GNU GPL Revisited GPL Violations When do I violate the license when one ore more of the obligations are not fulfilled What risk do I take if I violate the license? the GPL automatically revokes any usage right any copyright holder can obtain a preliminary injunction banning distribution of the infringing product %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %page GNU GPL - Copyright helps Copyleft Past GPL enforcement Past GPL enforcement GPL violations are nothing new, as GPL licensed software is nothing new. However, the recent GNU/Linux hype made GPL licensed software used more often The FSF enforces GPL violations of code on which they hold the copyright silently, without public notice in lengthy negotiations %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %page GNU GPL - Copyright helps Copyleft The Linksys case During 2003 the "Linksys" case drew a lot of attention Linksys was selling 802.11 WLAN Acces Ponts / Routers Lots of GPL licensed software embedded in the device (included Linux, uClibc, busybox, iptables, ...) FSF led alliance took the usual "quiet" approach Linksys bought itself a lot of time Some source code was released two months later About four months later, full GPL compliance was achieved %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %page GNU GPL - Copyright helps Copyleft The Linksys case Some developers didn't agree with this approach not enough publicity violators don't loose anything by first not complying and wait for the FSF four months delay is too much for low product lifecycles in WLAN world The netfilter/iptables project started to do their own enforcement in more cases that were coming up %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %page GNU GPL - Copyright helps Copyleft Enforcement case timeline In chronological order some user sends us a note he found our code somewhere reverse engineering of firmware images test purchase to verify device ships gpl-incompliant sending the infringing organization a warning notice wait for them to sign a statement to cease and desist if no statement is signed contract technical expert to do a study apply for a preliminary injunction if statement was signed try to work out the details grace period for boxes in stock possible try to indicate that a donation would be good PR %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %page GNU GPL - Copyright helps Copyleft Sucess so far Success so far amicable agreements with a number (35+) of companies sdome of which made significant donations to charitable organizations of the free software community preliminary injunction against Sitecom, Sitecom also lost appeals case court decision of munich district court in Sitecom appeals case three more preliminary injunctions more settled cases (not public yet) negotiating in more cases public awareness %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %page GNU GPL - Copyright helps Copyleft Cases so far (1/3) Allnet GmbH Siemens AG Fujitsu-Siemens Computers GmbH Axis A.B. Securepoint GmbH U.S.Robotics Germany GmbH Netgear GmbH Belkin Compnents GmbH Asus GmbH Gateprotect GmbH Sitecom GmbH / B.V. TomTom B.V. Gigabyte Technologies GmbH %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %page GNU GPL - Copyright helps Copyleft Cases so far (2/3) Sun Deutschland GmbH Open-E GmbH Siemens AG (second case) Deutsche Telekom AG Hitachi Inc. Tecom Inc. ARP Datacon GmbH Conceptronic B.V. D-Link GmbH Adaptec Deutschland GmbH Belkin Compnents GmbH (second case) %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %page GNU GPL - Copyright helps Copyleft Cases so far (3/3) Siemens AG (third case) TARGA GmbH Medion AG naviflash GmbH Maxtor Inc. Cisco Deutschland GmbH Fortinet naviflash GmbH iRiver Europe GmbH Cisco Deutschland GmbH (second case) Acer Deutschland GmbH SMC Networks GmbH >= 100 more not public %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %page GNU GPL - Copyright helps Copyleft What we've learned Copyleft-style licenses can be enforced! A lot of companies don't take Free Software licenses seriously Even corporations with large legal departments who should know Reasons unclear, probably the financial risk of infringement was considered less than the expected gains The FUD spread about "GPL not holding up in court" has disappeared %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %page GNU GPL - Copyright helps Copyleft Future GPL Enforcement GPL Enforcement remains an important issue for Free Software will start to happen within the court more often has to be made public in order to raise awareness will probably happen within some form of organization talks have started with the FSF Europe What about Copylefted Content (Creative Commons) probably just a matter of time until CC-licensed works of art are infringed %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %page GNU GPL - Copyright helps Copyleft Problems of GPL Enforcement Problems distributed copyright is an important safeguard can make enforcement difficult, since copyright traditionally doesn't know cases with thousands of copyright holders distribution of damages extremely difficult the legal issue of having to do reverse engineering in order to prove copyright infringement(!) only the copyright holder (in most cases the author) can do it users discovering GPL'd software need to communicate those issues to all entitled parties (copyright holders) infringers obfuscating and/or encrypting fres software as disguise %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %page GNU GPL - Copyright helps Copyleft gpl-violations.org The http://www.gpl-violations.org/ project was started ~ 3 year ago as a platform wher users can report alleged violations to verify those violations and inform all copyright holders to inform the public about ongoing enforcement efforts At the moment, project is only backed by the author more volunteers needed to investigate all cases something like 270 reported (alleged) violations backlog %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %page GNU GPL - Copyright helps Copyleft Make later enforcement easy Practical rules for proof by reverse engineering Don't fix typos in error messages and symbol names Leave obscure error messages like 'Rusty needs more caffeine' Make binary contain string of copyright message, not only source Practical rules for potential damages claims Use revision control system Document source of each copyrightable contribution Name+Email address in CVS commit message Consider something like FSFE FLA (Fiduciary License Agreement) Make sure that employers are fine with contributions of their employees If you find out about violation Don't make it public (has to be new/urgent for injunctive relief) Contact lawyer immediately to send wanrning notice %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %page How to (not) use GPL Software The End %size 3 Further reading: %size 3 The http://gpl-violations.org/ project %size 3 The Free Software Foundation http://www.fsf.org/, http://www.fsf-europe.org/ %size 3 The GNU Project http://www.gnu.org/ %size 3 The netfilter homepage http://www.netfilter.org/ %% http://management.itmanagersjournal.com/management/04/05/31/1733229.shtml?tid=85&tid=4